Portrait of the average American voter...

In article ,
"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote:

Life will go on.

Maybe not.

You want to know what really scares me about the future of mankind?
It is our rapidly growing ability to genetically engineer ourselves and
other creatures. It won't be long before millions of people can create
viruses, bacteria, poisons etc. to wipe most of the human population
from the face of the earth or target a particular race. Now that scares
me way more than a climate change.

Yes and the US government has had this ability for 40 years, back in 1970
there was an accident at a government Lab here in MD whereby Anthrax was
released. Cattle in a nearby farm field sickened died-it was kept more
or less quiet. Now the geography has changed quite a bit and millions of
people live in the shadow....of the still operational lab.

Very seldom do violent people fail to meet violent deaths.....and its
always a two way street.
--
"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely,
the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great
and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire
at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920.


Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com

Raphael Bustin wrote:
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 18:02:21 -0500, "Michael Johnson, PE"
wrote:


The whole issue is just way too complicated to resolve anytime soon.
Climate change will likely not effect me either. I might see another 40
years and by then I still don't know if science will be in a position to
definitely predicate climate change. Just like we, and all living
things, have adjusted in the past to changes in our world, it will be
the same in the future. Life will go on.


Life will go on. Yes, most likely.

But will Homo Sapiens be part of the mix?

There are nearly seven billion of us on the planet now.
That's nearly three times the number when I was born.

I fear that events will cause a major reduction in that
number. Whether it happens by way of war, disease,
terrorism, or famine -- I have no idea. I do have the
sense that events are accelerating toward an
unhappy conclusion to the riddle.

We are using technology to allow the unbridled growth of the human
population. If it doesn't advance fast enough we will hit a wall one
day. The trouble is advancing technology breeds a whole set of problems
on its own. I believe that in the end we are no different than rabbits,
deer, plankton or any other living organism in that once there are too
many of us Mother Nature will self correct. We, as a species, are
acting no different than any other. We can multiply unchecked so we do it.

There is a bright side though. It appears that once a certain standard
of living is achieved by a group they will reduce there numbers. Most
advanced nations are seeing their population shrink. Europe, Japan, USA
etc. all have a declining domestic population and here in the USA
immigration is the only reason for our population growth. The trick is
to get the rest of the world to the same point but this will bring other
problems. There are no easy answers, apparently.

Greg "_" wrote:
In article ,
"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote:

Life will go on.

Maybe not.

You want to know what really scares me about the future of mankind?
It is our rapidly growing ability to genetically engineer ourselves and
other creatures. It won't be long before millions of people can create
viruses, bacteria, poisons etc. to wipe most of the human population
from the face of the earth or target a particular race. Now that scares
me way more than a climate change.

Yes and the US government has had this ability for 40 years, back in 1970
there was an accident at a government Lab here in MD whereby Anthrax was
released. Cattle in a nearby farm field sickened died-it was kept more
or less quiet. Now the geography has changed quite a bit and millions of
people live in the shadow....of the still operational lab.

Very seldom do violent people fail to meet violent deaths.....and its
always a two way street.

The difference between the past/present and the future is that
technology will be in more hands. Fifty years from now whipping up a
batch of lethal microbes or an unstoppable virus will be within the
capability of too many people. Biological warfare in the future just
might make mankind wish for the good old days of thermonuclear war.

Greg "_" wrote:
In article ,
Raphael Bustin wrote:
No, it won't be like the movie, but if my understanding
is correct, severe climate change has occured in *tens*
of years (or less) rather than centuries or millenia.

More worrisome, was the National Geographic show I saw
recently that predicted a sudden change in the earths magnetic fields.
At a point in time which is anyones guess.

However:

By looking at lava fields and the crystal structure thereof and the
orientation of millions of years of volcanic activity the geologist
predict that a change of field orientation is well overdue for this
historic period. The impact ranges from world wide aura borealis, to
huge segments of population dying from gamma exposure.

Not to mention failure of electronics and communications systems.

It might wreak havoc with some electronics but I don't think a pole
shift is catastrophic. Numerous shifts have occurred through history
with little apparent damage. Now if the magnetic field ever permanently
disappears then we are in deep, deep trouble. Our atmosphere would be
ripped into space by the solar winds and breathing would become rather
difficult.

"Mark²" wrote:

John Turco wrote:
"Mark²" wrote:

http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/69939652/original

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson


Hello, Mark²:

Why are you insulting our primate pals, anyway? g

Ah.
I'll apologize to our gorilla friends next time I visit...

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson


Hello, Mark²:

As long as this thread is on such a political tangent, I should point
out that the ape in question is reminiscent of Ronald Reagan's old
college chum, Bonzo. G


Cordially,
John Turco

"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote:

heavily edited, for brevity

As I stated earlier, we have heard nothing but doomsday predictions from
the environmentalists for the last fifty years. We should be dead, or
mankind at least on the ropes, several times over if any of it were
based in solid scientific fact. When I see a report on climate change
that gives all sides, i.e. the good and the bad, then I might take it
seriously. Until then, I see this whole debate as nothing more than a
political maneuver and a money grab.


Hello, Michael:

Scientists also say that the earth has undergone drastic climatic
shifts, many times, throughout its long history. Plus, they claim,
the vast majority of animal species which have ever existed, are
now extinct.

If those assertions are correct, then how could Man - a relative
newcomer to the planet - be to blame for all of this earlier
carnage? Such an obvious contradiction shows the arrogance of
modern science, in my estimation.


Cordially,
John Turco

John Turco wrote:
"Mark²" wrote:

John Turco wrote:
"Mark²" wrote:

http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/69939652/original

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson


Hello, Mark²:

Why are you insulting our primate pals, anyway? g

Ah.
I'll apologize to our gorilla friends next time I visit...

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson


Hello, Mark²:

As long as this thread is on such a political tangent, I should point
out that the ape in question is reminiscent of Ronald Reagan's old
college chum, Bonzo. G

Ah, yes. Perhaps a relation?

The secret service wouldn't allow cameras, but I did sketch a quickie
prtrait of another little fellow while at the zoo:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/70077735/original
and then there was this guy:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/37273429/original

(We must be fair to both sides, after all...)

-Mark²
--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

John Turco wrote:
"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote:

heavily edited, for brevity

As I stated earlier, we have heard nothing but doomsday predictions from
the environmentalists for the last fifty years. We should be dead, or
mankind at least on the ropes, several times over if any of it were
based in solid scientific fact. When I see a report on climate change
that gives all sides, i.e. the good and the bad, then I might take it
seriously. Until then, I see this whole debate as nothing more than a
political maneuver and a money grab.


Hello, Michael:

Scientists also say that the earth has undergone drastic climatic
shifts, many times, throughout its long history. Plus, they claim,
the vast majority of animal species which have ever existed, are
now extinct.

If those assertions are correct, then how could Man - a relative
newcomer to the planet - be to blame for all of this earlier
carnage? Such an obvious contradiction shows the arrogance of
modern science, in my estimation.

Climate scientists can't tell us why we had an active hurricane season
last year and a dead one this year. Forget about an accurate prediction
for next year. Now why is it they can they predict global climate
change 100 years from now but not hurricane activity in the Atlantic a
year from now? Most of these climate studies are funded by people or
groups that have a political agenda. One just has to dig deep enough to
find the connection. My guess is that, in the future, mankind will do
what we have always done regarding climate change.... adapt to it.
Personally, I feel this is a better course, and much less futile, than
trying to direct climate change to our liking.

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 23:48:01 -0500, "Michael Johnson, PE"
wrote:

Most of these climate studies are funded by people or
groups that have a political agenda.


Please give us a few specific examples of these groups
and their agendas.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

Raphael Bustin wrote:
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 23:48:01 -0500, "Michael Johnson, PE"
wrote:

Most of these climate studies are funded by people or
groups that have a political agenda.


Please give us a few specific examples of these groups
and their agendas.

Aren't we done with each other on this topic?